I know that efficiencies are climbing, and I feel like solar and wind can definitely be more useful as time goes on. I've seen one of the larger wind farms in Kansas though, and it took up miles and miles of space to barely produce enough power to supply some of the small towns around it (it was, admittedly, very impressive though).With solar and wind, we also need superior battery technology because of their intermittent nature. I see them and nuclear working in tandem to provide a constant stream of power in the future, or maybe Nuclear simply bridging the gap. A lot of people would love to be on just solar and wind power, we just have to make it economically feasible without getting taxpayer money to fill in the gaps.
Wow, you just disregarded everything I, my sources, and your sources said. Just because upfront cost is higher does not mean TOTAL COST is higher, dumbs**t. I'm getting really tire of your childish attitude, and your willful ignorance of the facts. This is, in your own words, your original argument:"Nuclear power plants are not very cost effective, which is why you don't see them replacing coal-fired plants. They take huge amounts of capital for design and construction, and only after they've been started do they begin to make revenue."My argument, is that they ARE cost effective. Again, I am not disputing initial upfront costs. I am talking about total costs. I also NEVER said they were cheaper then coal, only that they were almost AS CHEAP as coal. "Clean Coal," solar, wind, gas, and oil are all far more expensive than nuclear, which was my initial point. All of your sources have said exactly what I've been arguing since the beginning. despite a large upfront cost, even ignoring subsidies (which, I'd like to mention, may be higher than plain coal, but PALES in comparison to the HUGE subsidization of solar, wind, and clean coal), Nuclear power is one of the cheapest sources of energy we have. It is nearly as cheap as normal coal, and a whole HELL of a lot cleaner.And as for me quoting you in my conclusion, well, if you can't comprehend sarcasm, you have no place debating an energy policy you obviously don't understand either. Just because you can copy/paste from wikipedia doesn't give you any intelligence to know what the hell you are copying.
Every source you provide keeps proving my point. Thanks for doing my research for me!You quote the 2006 estimates for Australia, yet deceptively leave out the table immediately preceding it concerning 2007 California LEC, which kills your own point:Technology↓
Wow. YOU STILL CANNOT READ! ROFL! The things I said are two different tidbits of information from two different sources. You still cannot disprove that. You're beyond moronic.Notice how I said "also." It means in "addition too," not "changing the subject to". That an you completely failed at reading comprehension, because the sources talk about fuel end use, something you completely missed. I don't blame you, simple things are hard for retards like you.I don't need to post any more information because all I needed to post I posted already. Never had to lie because the facts are all there. I like how you never posted information after the original few, because even you saw how retarded it was, and it's hard to find reputable sources on things that are extremely nonfactual.At least you admit defeat. I win. We're done.
Yeap, aparently you're too retarded to even look up things just because they didn't copy and paste correctly. Talk about EPIC FAIL: <a class="user" href="http://www.thenation.com/issue/may-12-2008" rel="nofollow">http://www.thenation.com/issue/may-12-2008</a> (notice the front cover).Guess you can just continue to disregard all the studies and posts I made above, because that's easiest. I've already proven all of my points. You continue to fail.US have the staggering $13 billion in subsides and tax breaks in the Nuclear Giveaway Bill Energy Policy Act of 2005That $74Billion for 1948-1998 figure only includes R&D expenditures There’s far more subsidies to the Nuclear power industry just R&D. For instance the financing of building Nuclear power reactors is all thanks to gigantic federal financing.In fact, from 2000 through October 2007, nuclear power plant construction costs -- mainly materials, labor and engineering -- have gone up 185 percent! That means a nuclear power plant that would have cost $4 billion to build in 2000 would have cost more than $11 billion to build last October.From MIT studies to other sources from people in industry, you can continue to fail and ignore glaring facts.Let's not forget the most epic fail of all; one of the few sources you could dig up from the bottom of the intertubes:I cannot believe you seriously sourced<a class="user" href="http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm</a>Let's go to the homepage:<a class="user" href="http://www.nucleartourist.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nucleartourist.com</a>AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!&lt;META content="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0" name="GENERATOR"> ROFL!Owned.
Nobody "hates oil" you dips**t. Did you go to school at the University of George W. Bush and double major in Being an assh**e and Not Reading?
Game, set, and match. I won the argument with s**t loads of FACTS.I win.Though, let's not forget this: <META content="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0" name="GENERATOR">
ryanman7May 31, 2010
I know that efficiencies are climbing, and I feel like solar and wind can definitely be more useful as time goes on. I've seen one of the larger wind farms in Kansas though, and it took up miles and miles of space to barely produce enough power to supply some of the small towns around it (it was, admittedly, very impressive though).With solar and wind, we also need superior battery technology because of their intermittent nature. I see them and nuclear working in tandem to provide a constant stream of power in the future, or maybe Nuclear simply bridging the gap. A lot of people would love to be on just solar and wind power, we just have to make it economically feasible without getting taxpayer money to fill in the gaps.
asrrin29Jun 2, 2010
Wow, you just disregarded everything I, my sources, and your sources said. Just because upfront cost is higher does not mean TOTAL COST is higher, dumbs**t. I'm getting really tire of your childish attitude, and your willful ignorance of the facts. This is, in your own words, your original argument:"Nuclear power plants are not very cost effective, which is why you don't see them replacing coal-fired plants. They take huge amounts of capital for design and construction, and only after they've been started do they begin to make revenue."My argument, is that they ARE cost effective. Again, I am not disputing initial upfront costs. I am talking about total costs. I also NEVER said they were cheaper then coal, only that they were almost AS CHEAP as coal. "Clean Coal," solar, wind, gas, and oil are all far more expensive than nuclear, which was my initial point. All of your sources have said exactly what I've been arguing since the beginning. despite a large upfront cost, even ignoring subsidies (which, I'd like to mention, may be higher than plain coal, but PALES in comparison to the HUGE subsidization of solar, wind, and clean coal), Nuclear power is one of the cheapest sources of energy we have. It is nearly as cheap as normal coal, and a whole HELL of a lot cleaner.And as for me quoting you in my conclusion, well, if you can't comprehend sarcasm, you have no place debating an energy policy you obviously don't understand either. Just because you can copy/paste from wikipedia doesn't give you any intelligence to know what the hell you are copying.
asrrin29Jun 2, 2010
Every source you provide keeps proving my point. Thanks for doing my research for me!You quote the 2006 estimates for Australia, yet deceptively leave out the table immediately preceding it concerning 2007 California LEC, which kills your own point:Technology↓
kasha34Jun 2, 2010
Don't work. 20-30 miles and they're done for the day.
donkiJun 4, 2010
Wow. YOU STILL CANNOT READ! ROFL! The things I said are two different tidbits of information from two different sources. You still cannot disprove that. You're beyond moronic.Notice how I said "also." It means in "addition too," not "changing the subject to". That an you completely failed at reading comprehension, because the sources talk about fuel end use, something you completely missed. I don't blame you, simple things are hard for retards like you.I don't need to post any more information because all I needed to post I posted already. Never had to lie because the facts are all there. I like how you never posted information after the original few, because even you saw how retarded it was, and it's hard to find reputable sources on things that are extremely nonfactual.At least you admit defeat. I win. We're done.
donkiJun 8, 2010
Yeap, aparently you're too retarded to even look up things just because they didn't copy and paste correctly. Talk about EPIC FAIL: <a class="user" href="http://www.thenation.com/issue/may-12-2008" rel="nofollow">http://www.thenation.com/issue/may-12-2008</a> (notice the front cover).Guess you can just continue to disregard all the studies and posts I made above, because that's easiest. I've already proven all of my points. You continue to fail.US have the staggering $13 billion in subsides and tax breaks in the Nuclear Giveaway Bill Energy Policy Act of 2005That $74Billion for 1948-1998 figure only includes R&D expenditures There’s far more subsidies to the Nuclear power industry just R&D. For instance the financing of building Nuclear power reactors is all thanks to gigantic federal financing.In fact, from 2000 through October 2007, nuclear power plant construction costs -- mainly materials, labor and engineering -- have gone up 185 percent! That means a nuclear power plant that would have cost $4 billion to build in 2000 would have cost more than $11 billion to build last October.From MIT studies to other sources from people in industry, you can continue to fail and ignore glaring facts.Let's not forget the most epic fail of all; one of the few sources you could dig up from the bottom of the intertubes:I cannot believe you seriously sourced<a class="user" href="http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm</a>Let's go to the homepage:<a class="user" href="http://www.nucleartourist.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nucleartourist.com</a>AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!&lt;META content="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0" name="GENERATOR"> ROFL!Owned.
derek817Jun 9, 2010
I think i know someones new mascot............the BP oil covered dead Dolphin.....if that doesn't win hearts and minds....i don't know what will.
eplurbispablumJun 10, 2010
Nobody "hates oil" you dips**t. Did you go to school at the University of George W. Bush and double major in Being an assh**e and Not Reading?
fredpilotJun 10, 2010
A Car cannot be killed.. It was murdered!
donkiJun 18, 2010
Game, set, and match. I won the argument with s**t loads of FACTS.I win.Though, let's not forget this: <META content="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0" name="GENERATOR">
gephoriaJun 18, 2010
<a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bjtf_zPEQi8" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bjtf_zPEQi8</a>